Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2020-04-08.

Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair has urged his Labour Party to abandon “crazy revolutionary socialism” as it seeks a new leader after its worst election defeat since the 1930s.

The United Kingdom’s left has entered a period of soul-searching after suffering in the December 12 election, which handed Prime Minister Boris Johnson ‘s Conservative Party a large parliamentary majority.»

«to abandon “crazy revolutionary socialism”».

* * * * * * *

«Corbyn, a staunch socialist who presided over Labour for nearly five years, stood down in the aftermath of last December’s general election, which saw him lead his party to one of its most disastrous general election results in living memory»

«Starmer, a knighted barrister and former director of public prosecutions, took 56.2 percent of the vote on Saturday, fending off a challenge from two of his rivals in the party: Rebecca Long-Bailey, a Corbyn loyalist, and Lisa Nandy»

«Starmer was the most experienced candidate, …. He’s an intelligent man, has his [legal] background … comes across as balanced and has gravitas.»

«Starmer, 57, graduated from Oxford in 1986 and became a barrister, focusing on human rights law …. In 2008, he became the head of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and director of Public Prosecutions. He stood down from that role in 2013»

«Starmer, an ardent Europhile, resigned from his Corbyn-appointed role as shadow immigration minister in 2016, citing the need to change the Labour Party leader following the UK’s “catastrophic” Brexit vote»

«The new Labour leader used his victory speech to describe Labour’s alleged anti-Semitism as a “stain on our party”, pledging to “tear out this poison by its roots”.»

«key to leadership at this time of crisis is to become an expert in the art of constructive opposition»

«Since 2005, when Tony Blair led the party to victory, the Labour has not won a general election as it lost working-class votes to the right-wing Conservatives»

*

Glasgow, United Kingdom – Jeremy Corbyn’s chequered leadership of the British Labour Party has officially come to an end after Keir Starmer was elected to replace him following a protracted four-month contest.

Corbyn, a staunch socialist who presided over Labour for nearly five years, stood down in the aftermath of last December’s general election, which saw him lead his party to one of its most disastrous general election results in living memory.

Starmer, a knighted barrister and former director of public prosecutions, took 56.2 percent of the vote on Saturday, fending off a challenge from two of his rivals in the party: Rebecca Long-Bailey, a Corbyn loyalist, and Lisa Nandy.

Angela Rayner was also elected as a deputy to Starmer, who made a pre-recorded victory speech online where he described his election as an “honour and privilege”.

The coronavirus pandemic saw Labour cancel the leadership special conference that would have publicly unveiled its new chief, who will now have the daunting task of challenging the dominance of the ruling Conservative Party government, which holds an 80-seat parliamentary majority.

“Starmer was the most experienced candidate,” Simon Pia, a former Scottish Labour Party press adviser, told Al Jazeera. “He’s an intelligent man, has his [legal] background … comes across as balanced and has gravitas.”

Named after Labour’s first member of Parliament, Scotsman Keir Hardie, Starmer, 57, graduated from Oxford in 1986 and became a barrister, focusing on human rights laws.

His legal work saw him endeavour to eradicate the death penalty in some Caribbean and African countries.

In 2008, he became the head of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and director of Public Prosecutions. He stood down from that role in 2013.

Two years later, Starmer won a seat in Parliament with a majority of more than 17,000 votes.

Starmer, an ardent Europhile, resigned from his Corbyn-appointed role as shadow immigration minister in 2016, citing the need to change the Labour Party leader following the UK’s “catastrophic” Brexit vote.

He rejoined as shadow Brexit secretary later that year as the UK began the process to leave the European Union.

Pledge to fight anti-Semitism

Starmer, who is taking over the opposition party during an unprecedented global peacetime crisis, will seek to steer Labour away from the scandal-hit Corbyn years towards a more credible claim to power.

Corbyn – a committed pro-Palestine campaigner – sensationally secured the Labour top job from the political backbenches in September 2015, but faced anti-Semitism allegations and party resignations during his tenure as he fought and lost two UK general elections and successfully repelled one challenge to his leadership.

Critics accused him of being too hard left – even Marxist – but where does Starmer, who once called for a more “human rights approach to foreign policy”, stand?

“Corbyn is identifiably on the left of the Labour Party,” political author Francis Beckett, whose forthcoming play on post-second world war Labour Prime Minister Clement Attlee – A Modest Little Man – is scheduled to run in London this November, told Al Jazeera.

“There used to be two traditions of the right and the left, but since the 1980s, there’s really been three – the centre-left – and that’s where Starmer stands.”

Yet, for Starmer, assuming the leadership of the UK’s official opposition amid the coronavirus crisis is likely to be a muted occasion.

The new Labour leader used his victory speech to describe Labour’s alleged anti-Semitism as a “stain on our party”, pledging to “tear out this poison by its roots”.

Tim Bale, a professor of politics at London’s Queen Mary University, told Al Jazeera the “downside [of winning the Labour leadership] is that Starmer probably won’t see the immediate boost in the polls that many new leaders experience” during to the pandemic.

“The upside is that journalists won’t be scrutinising his each and every move, watching and waiting for – and pouncing on – every misstep,” he added.

As UK’s Conservative Prime Minister Boris Johnson remains in self-isolation having been diagnosed with the coronavirus late last month, Bale said the “key to leadership at this time of crisis is to become an expert in the art of constructive opposition”.

Indeed, while untested in a top political leadership role, many commentators agreed that Starmer’s grasp of detail could see him challenge Johnson’s more bombastic approach to politics.

“Maybe he will provide a good contrast to Johnson,” said Pia. “Starmer has a respected legal brain, which, against Johnson, could be quite effective.”

Long road ahead for Labour

But, as even loyal Labour supporters concede, the party has a long road ahead. Since 2005, when Tony Blair led the party to victory, the Labour has not won a general election as it lost working-class votes to the right-wing Conservatives.

Scotland, which almost voted for statehood six years ago, remains a thorn in the side of the party. Today, the former Labour heartland is dominated by the ruling pro-independence Scottish National Party (SNP), which has led Scotland’s devolved government at the Scottish Parliament since 2007.

The narrow Brexit vote to quit the EU in 2016, which divided the four-nation UK like no other issue, is another minefield that requires navigation once the coronavirus crisis is over.

Until the UK officially left the bloc on January 31, Europhiles and Eurosceptics had faced off in a bitter propaganda war that has only recently been replaced by a battle to save lives during the pandemic.

But the UK that would emerge from the health crisis remains shrouded in uncertainty, and so does Starmer’s role within it.

“In normal times, you’d have to be a brave man to bet on Labour coming anywhere near the government at the next election given the beating it took last year,” said Bale. “But, these are not normal times.”

Bale said the “wash-up from this [coronavirus] crisis could prove devastating for this government and the Conservative Party’s enthusiasm for austerity” over the last decade.

“Add to that an already volatile, less tribal electorate and nothing perhaps is impossible. In any case, if Starmer even comes close in 2024 – if that’s the date of the next election – he will have a pretty good claim.”

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2020-03-16.

«The UK’s Transport Secretary Grant Shapps confirmed that the UK will leave the European aviation safety regulator (EASA) after the Brexit transition period that ends on December 31»

«As you would expect from an independent nation, we can’t be subjected to a set of rules and laws made by somebody else…we can’t accept rules from the EU Commission and we cannot accept rulings in terms of court cases from the European Court of Justice or anybody else, any more than the US would, …. A lot of that EU expertise was, in fact, British. In fact, a lot of the leading lights (at EASA) were from the UK»

«the senior figures at EASA who are British would return to the UK by the end of the year, as regulatory powers will revert to the UK’s Civil Aviation Authority»

«The UK’s new safety authority could take up to 10 years to create, according to some estimates, and will cost up to £40 million annually to implement, far for that the £1 million to £4 million that Britain contributes to EASA each year»

* * * * * * *

«we can’t be subjected to a set of rules and laws made by somebody else»

«we can’t accept rules from the EU Commission and we cannot accept rulings in terms of court cases from the European Court of Justice or anybody else»

*

The UK’s Transport Secretary Grant Shapps confirmed that the UK will leave the European aviation safety regulator (EASA) after the Brexit transition period that ends on December 31.

“As you would expect from an independent nation, we can’t be subjected to a set of rules and laws made by somebody else…we can’t accept rules from the EU Commission and we cannot accept rulings in terms of court cases from the European Court of Justice or anybody else, any more than the US would,” said Shapps. “A lot of that EU expertise was, in fact, British. In fact, a lot of the leading lights (at EASA) were from the UK”.

Shapps said the senior figures at EASA who are British would return to the UK by the end of the year, as regulatory powers will revert to the UK’s Civil Aviation Authority. The United Kingdom will then seek to be “particularly forward-leaning” when it comes to technology and the automation sectors

The UK’s new safety authority could take up to 10 years to create, according to some estimates, and will cost up to £40 million annually to implement, far for that the £1 million to £4 million that Britain contributes to EASA each year.

The London-based International Airlines Group also expressed disappointment with the decision and added that the Civil Aviation Authority “does not have the expertise required to operate as a world-class safety and technical regulator”.

“Being a member of the European Aviation Safety Agency is not compatible with the UK having genuine economic and political independence,” said the department for transport. “We will maintain world-leading safety standards for the industry…and will continue to work with colleagues in the EU to establish a new regulatory relationship.”

* * * * * * *

«Migrants: EU commission not fit to guard treaties.»

«Almost 100 days into its mandate and this European Commission is no longer a credible guardian of the EU treaties»

«When it comes to asylum, EU treaty articles based on the Geneva Convention allow people to seek international protection, as does the charter of fundamental rights»

«But the commission has turned its back on asylum seekers, refugees, and migrants trying to cross from Turkey to Greece.»

«Within hours of the visit, the commission had granted an extra €700m to Greece, on top of some €2.4bn already doled out since 2016, and promised a rapid deployment of EU border guards and equipment to the country»

«At a staged press conference with the three presidents, journalists were even denied any questions as Greek prime minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis dominated the narrative unchallenged»

«”The border of Greece is also the external border of the European Union. We will protect them,” he said to a round of applause in a seated crowd peppered by men in uniforms»

«The aim was to avoid any repeat of what had happened five years ago when some one million people entered Greece, ventured up into the Western Balkans, and were waved through to the rest of the EU by Hungary’s right-wing government»

«The following years saw internal EU disputes on migration that made a mockery of a Union that is supposed to bind 27 member states»

«It is also one where past EU failures on migration have forced this Brussels executive to borrow from the far-right handbook»

«the EU is now prepared to bend its own and international rulebook on pushing back people who have the right to seek international protection»

«Hungary’s prime minister Viktor Orban will once again feel vindicated, as will Italy’s former deputy prime minister Matteo Salvini.»

«It is worth recalling that Von der Leyen became commission president on the back of support from the right-wing governments in Poland and Hungary»

«Asked if it was legal for Greece to suspend asylum claims for a month as Greece has done, the commission announced it had no “authority to have a definitive legal opinion or legal doctrine.”»

«”It is not up to the commission to offer any opinion or judgement on a situation which is exceptional, that is under certain constraints,” said Margaritis Schinas, the vice-president in charge of “promoting our European way of life”.»

«what you will get is a commission that has cowed to the far-right and one that is no longer fit to be the guardian of the EU treaties»

Almost 100 days into its mandate and this European Commission is no longer a credible guardian of the EU treaties.

But the commission has turned its back on asylum seekers, refugees, and migrants trying to cross from Turkey to Greece.

“Those who seek to test Europe’s unity will be disappointed. We will hold the line and our unity will prevail,” commission president Ursula von der Leyen, using terminology more apt for war, recently said at a photo-op trip on the Greek Turkish border.

Von der Leyen had gone to Greece along with the presidents of the European Council and the European Parliament after Turkey declared its borders with Greece and Bulgaria were open once again due to the war in Syria.

Carefully orchestrated photos and videos prepared by the EU’s internal communications team portrayed the presidents staring at empty farmland from a helicopter portal.

The Hollywood-like optics were meant to convey an image of EU strength.

Within hours of the visit, the commission had granted an extra €700m to Greece, on top of some €2.4bn already doled out since 2016, and promised a rapid deployment of EU border guards and equipment to the country.

That a four-year old Syrian boy died after a boat capsized on the way to the Greek islands a full day ahead of their visit was not mentioned.

At a staged press conference with the three presidents, journalists were even denied any questions as Greek prime minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis dominated the narrative unchallenged.

“The border of Greece is also the external border of the European Union. We will protect them,” he said to a round of applause in a seated crowd peppered by men in uniforms.

The aim was to avoid any repeat of what had happened five years ago when some one million people entered Greece, ventured up into the Western Balkans, and were waved through to the rest of the EU by Hungary’s right-wing government.

Budapest at the time even organised buses to take the asylum seekers to Austria.

The following years saw internal EU disputes on migration that made a mockery of a Union that is supposed to bind 27 member states.

Ministry of truth

What happened after Von der Leyen’s Greek-Turkish border visit was a demonstration of a European Commission that is now engaging in Orwellian double-speak as it skirts away questions on human rights.

It is also one where past EU failures on migration have forced this Brussels executive to borrow from the far-right handbook.

Having failed over the past few years to cobble together any credible plan on asylum, the EU is now prepared to bend its own and international rulebook on pushing back people who have the right to seek international protection.

Hungary’s prime minister Viktor Orban will once again feel vindicated, as will Italy’s former deputy prime minister Matteo Salvini.

Orban, commenting on the recent Greek-Turkish border fiasco, said with gusto that it was Hungary that had “announced a policy against Muslim migration” already in 2015.

So what has happened to the European Commission?

It is worth recalling that Von der Leyen became commission president on the back of support from the right-wing governments in Poland and Hungary.

It is also worth recalling she had slapped the label “protecting our European way of life” onto an EU commissioner in charge of migration, largely seen as a head nod to right-wing factions.

This was later changed to “promoting” given the widespread backlash. But taken together, they were clues into what this commission is prepared to do.

Asked if it was legal for Greece to suspend asylum claims for a month as Greece has done, the commission announced it had no “authority to have a definitive legal opinion or legal doctrine.”

Asked if it was legal to fire rubber bullets at asylum seekers, the commission also refused to comment.

“It is not up to the commission to offer any opinion or judgement on a situation which is exceptional, that is under certain constraints,” said Margaritis Schinas, the vice-president in charge of “promoting our European way of life”.

Eric Mamer, the commission’s chief spokesperson, was even more blunt. “You won’t get a straight yes or no answer from me,” he said.

Instead, what you will get is a commission that has cowed to the far-right and one that is no longer fit to be the guardian of the EU treaties. That honour now belongs to EU citizens alone, it seems.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2020-03-06.

«”There are many divergences, very serious divergences” among the UK and the EU after the first round of talks on the future relationship, EU chief negotiator Michel Barnier warned Thursday (5 March)»

«Barnier said the key hurdles are the framework of the agreement, fair competition, the role for the European Court of Justice (ECJ) and fisheries»

«After the first week of talks, Barnier said the EU and UK agreed to maintain high standards on rules and standards – but London does not to formally commit to those standards or agree to a mechanism to uphold them»

«As part of a trade deal, the EU wants to prevent the UK from undercutting and dumping EU businesses, and wants London to maintain environmental, labour, and state aid rules»

«”Why not stick to them [EU standards and rules], it is a question of trust,” Barnier said»

«Another key issue is that UK does not want to commit to applying the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), and rules out a role for the European Court of Justice in interpreting EU law, Barnier noted»

«The set-up of the agreement is also uncertain as the UK wants sectorial agreements on different issues, while the EU wants to have an overall agreement covering all areas»

«Negotiators are also at loggerheads over an agreement on access to British fishing waters and EU markets. Barnier said the UK is asking to negotiate separate reciprocal access on an annual basis like Norway»

«”The UK team made clear that, on 1 January 2021, we would regain our legal and economic independence – and that the future relationship must reflect that fact,”»

«Barnier warned not to underestimate the consequences of a no-deal by next January when EU rules and obligations will no longer apply to the UK»

*

“There are many divergences, very serious divergences” among the UK and the EU after the first round of talks on the future relationship, EU chief negotiator Michel Barnier warned Thursday (5 March).

Barnier said the key hurdles are the framework of the agreement, fair competition, the role for the European Court of Justice (ECJ) and fisheries.

After the first week of talks, Barnier said the EU and UK agreed to maintain high standards on rules and standards – but London does not to formally commit to those standards or agree to a mechanism to uphold them.

As part of a trade deal, the EU wants to prevent the UK from undercutting and dumping EU businesses, and wants London to maintain environmental, labour, and state aid rules.

“Why not stick to them [EU standards and rules], it is a question of trust,” Barnier said.

Another key issue is that UK does not want to commit to applying the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), and rules out a role for the European Court of Justice in interpreting EU law, Barnier noted.

The French politician argued that justice and criminal cooperation would include the exchange of sensitive personal data, and in order to protect EU citizens’s rights, EU law needs to be interpreted by the ECJ.

He said if there is no agreement on this, the level of cooperation between the UK and EU on criminal and justice would be much lower, based on international rules.

The set-up of the agreement is also uncertain as the UK wants sectorial agreements on different issues, while the EU wants to have an overall agreement covering all areas.

“We do not understand why would we go to a series specific agreement[s], why not put it all in a global framework, […] it is a practical question, to be efficient, to avoid needles parallel structures with separate ratification procedures,” Barnier said.

Fishy matters

Negotiators are also at loggerheads over an agreement on access to British fishing waters and EU markets.

Barnier said the UK is asking to negotiate separate reciprocal access on an annual basis like Norway, but that is not possible because of the large number of species that would come under such a deal.

Barnier said he will seek a “balanced” compromise on fisheries by July, but if the EU and UK cannot agree, he will try to get it in the overall agreement.

In the first week of negotiations talks have not taken place on foreign affairs and defence, Barnier said, because the UK has ruled out an specific agreement on those for now.

“These are going to be tough negotiations – this is just the first round. In some areas there seems to be a degree of common understanding of how to take the talks forward,” a UK government spokesperson said, adding that in areas such as fishing, governance, criminal justice and the level playing field there are “significant differences”.

“The UK team made clear that, on 1 January 2021, we would regain our legal and economic independence – and that the future relationship must reflect that fact,” the spokesperson added.

“An agreement is possible, even if difficult,” Barnier said, adding that mutual trust and not walking back on previous agreements are key to success.

The two sides have until the end of the year to negotiate a deal on the future relationship, if the UK does not ask for an extension to the transition period by July, which Boris Johnson, the UK prime minister, has pre-emptively ruled out.

Barnier warned not to underestimate the consequences of a no-deal by next January when EU rules and obligations will no longer apply to the UK.

“Next January will not be like January this year. It will be very, very different,” he said.

Barnier also said that his British counterpart, David Frost, had assured him that Britain will stick to the measures to prevent a hard border on the island of Ireland, agreed in the EU-UK divorce deal.

EU officials have been worried that by UK government statements hinting at not implementing border checks.

The EU-UK joint committee overseeing the withdrawal agreement will have its first meeting on 30 March.

Talks on the future relationship will continue on London later in March.

*

«No-deal Brexit is back — and it looks more likely than ever»

«On Monday, the two sides will finally sit down to negotiate what that future relationship looks like. And if the published priorities from London and Brussels are anything to go by, it’s going to be a bloodbath»

«The clock is ticking faster, the political landscape has changed, and no one knows how much good will there is»

«What does the UK want? …. It wants a free trade agreement with the EU similar to the one that Canada enjoys. The EU’s deal with Canada is substantial. It removes the need for most (but not all) tariffs on goods traded between the two. However, it does very little on financial services, the most important sector in the British economy»

«It’s worth remembering that the UK and EU currently trade with zero tariffs and close to zero tariff barriers»

«Because more than trade, what Prime Minister Boris Johnson really wants is to guarantee the UK’s independence from Brussels»

«Where the two sides really disagree is on the pre-conditions for any deal»

«And it’s more of a political row than anything else.»

«Which sounds awfully chummy, until you realize that those areas of sovereignty somewhat cut across the EU’s priorities»

«The same could be said in French fishing communities if the EU fails to reach an agreement on how much access French fishermen have to British waters. …. It matters very much to French fishermen because fish have an annoying habit of not respecting borders»

«The second big sticking point is the so-called Level Playing Field»

«If it is to allow UK goods to continue to enter its market free of tariffs, the EU doesn’t want Britain’s departure from the Union to create a competitor on its doorstep that can deviate from EU standards on things like workers’ rights, environmental protections and taxation in ways that make British firms more competitive»

«Which, given the EU’s obsession with rules, is freaking people out in Brussels»

«The UK rejects that any formal oversight is needed»

«the EU is suddenly trying to squeeze you on a trade deal and force the UK to hand over some of its independence»

«The fact that Johnson has a parliamentary majority of more than 80, whatever he decides means that Brussels is negotiating with a man who will follow through on his words»

On Monday, the two sides will finally sit down to negotiate what that future relationship looks like. And if the published priorities from London and Brussels are anything to go by, it’s going to be a bloodbath.

While both want a free trade agreement and close alignment, they also believe that the other is trying to suddenly change the rules of engagement.

Ruptures between the EU and UK are nothing new in Brexit, but this time it’s a little different. The clock is ticking faster, the political landscape has changed, and no one knows how much good will there is. Unless a major breakthrough or concession happens in the coming weeks, it’s hard to see how this concludes any way other than the UK’s transition period ending with no formal deal.

What does the UK want?

On paper, the UK’s goals are straightforward. It wants a free trade agreement with the EU similar to the one that Canada enjoys. The EU’s deal with Canada is substantial. It removes the need for most (but not all) tariffs on goods traded between the two. However, it does very little on financial services, the most important sector in the British economy.

It’s worth remembering that the UK and EU currently trade with zero tariffs and close to zero tariff barriers, so whatever trade deal is reached is still ultimately a question of how much friction will exist, which is a highly unorthodox starting point in trade talks.

This, however, is what the UK wants. Why? Because more than trade, what Prime Minister Boris Johnson really wants is to guarantee the UK’s independence from Brussels.

Sticking points

This is where things could get nasty. The EU also wants a trade deal with the UK and is entirely happy with it being a Canada-style deal. Where the two sides really disagree is on the pre-conditions for any deal. And it’s more of a political row than anything else.

“While there are clearly disagreements when it comes to the EU’s preconditions for negotiating a trade deal — particularly over fish, the role of the European Court of Justice, and the exact nature of the level playing field requirements — when it comes to what the future economic partnership actually looks like, the EU and UK really aren’t that far apart,” says the Centre for European Reform’s Samuel Lowe.

The 541-page Withdrawal Agreement signed off last autumn was accompanied by a 31-page document known as the Political Declaration. In it, the two sides talk of their mutual desire for a comprehensive trade deal, close cooperation on standards ranging from environmental to workers’ rights, and an acknowledgment that geography and history make the relationship unique. Both sides agreed this must be done in a way that respects the EU’s internal priorities, while also respecting the UK’s sovereignty.

Which sounds awfully chummy, until you realize that those areas of sovereignty somewhat cut across the EU’s priorities. And this means that before talks have even started, the familiar blame game between Brussels and London is in full force.

“Now we have both sides’ formal starting positions in this next round of talks, we can see that there are a substantial number of basic incompatibilities,” says Simon Usherwood, Professor in Politics at the University of Surrey.

Fish bones of contention

Let’s start with fish. Despite its relatively small economic importance in the grand scheme of things, there is a romantic idea of fishing communities that resonates with some European voters.

In the UK, the argument goes something like, “The EU’s Common Fisheries Policy has wrecked our fishing industry.” The same could be said in French fishing communities if the EU fails to reach an agreement on how much access French fishermen have to British waters. It matters very much to French fishermen because fish have an annoying habit of not respecting borders. And in elections, romantic arguments can become very powerful.

“Fisheries is a big problem, as the EU want to keep much of the effect of the Common Fisheries Policy, if not the policy itself, while the UK want a much looser arrangement,” says Usherwood. “Given how much both sides have laid weight on what is actually an economically very small sector, this will make it all the more difficult to resolve.”

The second big sticking point is the so-called Level Playing Field. If it is to allow UK goods to continue to enter its market free of tariffs, the EU doesn’t want Britain’s departure from the Union to create a competitor on its doorstep that can deviate from EU standards on things like workers’ rights, environmental protections and taxation in ways that make British firms more competitive.

The UK agrees, as per the Withdrawal Agreement, that this is the best outcome. However, it seems to think that the agreement to do so should be more of a gentlemen’s agreement than something formally locked in place. Which, given the EU’s obsession with rules, is freaking people out in Brussels.

The UK rejects that any formal oversight is needed. The EU believes that this can only be achieved with “sufficient guarantees for a level playing field so as to uphold corresponding high levels of protection over time” in areas ranging from state aid to competition law.

If you’re sitting in Brussels, the UK is breaking away from what it knew was going to have to be a formal agreement. If you’re in Downing Street, the EU is suddenly trying to squeeze you on a trade deal and force the UK to hand over some of its independence. As things stand, neither side’s position is acceptable to the other.

There are numerous other areas of disagreement, from the role that EU courts will play in the UK’s legal system (the UK says none, the EU says some) and cooperation on Europe’s security policy.

A delicate power balance

As difficult as this all seems, there are two ways of looking at it. On the one hand, these red lines can’t be moved and we will never get trade talks. On the other, it shows where both sides have room to negotiate. And looking at it from London, Johnson’s domestic position is arguably securer than his political counterparts in France, Germany, Italy and Dublin. Which gives him political capital at home.

And political stability matters when it comes to talking to Europe. The fact that Johnson has a parliamentary majority of more than 80, whatever he decides means that Brussels is negotiating with a man who will follow through on his words.

This could mean that he powers ahead with a hard Brexit, sure. But there is also a world in which Johnson moves closer to Brussels and uses his personal charm to sell a deal to Brexiteers. After all, he managed to shove what was in large part Theresa May’s Brexit deal down their throats last year, lubricated with sufficient champagne that they couldn’t help but swallow.

While EU officials accept that Johnson’s strength at home also gives him power at the negotiating table, they remain confident that the power of 27 versus one and the potential for no deal doing untold havoc to the British economy means Johnson will use his domestic power to take the less risky option and move closer to Europe.

But that assumes Johnson actually wants to move this time around. Last autumn, Johnson was working to alter a deal agreed by his predecessor that in some respects bought him time to negotiate a harder Brexit, if that’s what he wanted. The trouble is, no one really knows what he wants. Is this all a strategy of brinksmanship in the hopes Brussels will blink? Or does Johnson really value sovereignty over potential economic turmoil?

“As so often, this looks like an exercise in making it up as you go along, without a clear strategic objective in mind, let alone a cunning plan,” says Usherwood.

Which all makes for an exciting political story. It’s just a shame that one man’s gamble speaks for a nation of more than 66 million people.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2020-02-29.

«The PM … will accept no alignment, no jurisdiction of the European courts, and no concessions to any Brussels’ demands when talks start in March»

«The government also wants to make progress in striking free trade agreements with countries such as the United States, Japan, Australia and New Zealand»

«One option the PM could support would be a Canada-style free-trade deal which allows tariff-free trade for the majority of goods, but not include the UK’s dominant service industry.»

«We won’t take your rules, PM to tell Brussels»

*

«Brexit negotiator says UK must be able to set its own laws»

«The UK “must have the ability to set laws that suit us,” the PM’s chief Brexit negotiator has said in a speech in Brussels»

«David Frost has set out the UK’s stance ahead of post-Brexit trade negotiations, due to start next month. … He dismissed the idea an EU court would have a role in future trade disputes, saying: “We only want what other independent countries have.”»

«It is central to our vision that we must have the ability to set laws that suit us – to claim the right that every other non-EU country in the world has»

«”How would you feel if the UK demanded that, to protect ourselves, the EU dynamically harmonise with our national laws set in Westminster and the decisions of our own regulators and courts?»

*

La posizione dell’Unione Europea è altrettanto chiara.

«The EU wants the UK to sign up to strict rules on fair and open competition – known as level-playing-field guarantees – so if British companies are given tariff-free access to the EU market, they cannot undercut their rivals»

«The EU has repeatedly warned that the UK cannot expect to enjoy continued “high-quality” market access if it insists on diverging from EU social and environmental standards. …. It also wants the European Court of Justice to have a legal role in policing any free trade agreement reached»

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2020-02-23.

«Brexit negotiator says UK must be able to set its own laws»

«The UK “must have the ability to set laws that suit us,” the PM’s chief Brexit negotiator has said in a speech in Brussels»

«David Frost has set out the UK’s stance ahead of post-Brexit trade negotiations, due to start next month. … He dismissed the idea an EU court would have a role in future trade disputes, saying: “We only want what other independent countries have.”»

«It is central to our vision that we must have the ability to set laws that suit us – to claim the right that every other non-EU country in the world has»

«If this cannot be agreed, then Britain will trade on the basic international terms it currently follows with Australia»

«The EU wants the UK to sign up to strict rules on fair and open competition – known as level-playing-field guarantees – so if British companies are given tariff-free access to the EU market, they cannot undercut their rivals»

«The EU has repeatedly warned that the UK cannot expect to enjoy continued “high-quality” market access if it insists on diverging from EU social and environmental standards. …. It also wants the European Court of Justice to have a legal role in policing any free trade agreement reached»

«”How would you feel if the UK demanded that, to protect ourselves, the EU dynamically harmonise with our national laws set in Westminster and the decisions of our own regulators and courts?»

«The question is whether that can be reconciled with the EU’s position that it has to apply more stringent safeguards to its neighbour than it does to Canada, Japan or South Korea»

*

The UK “must have the ability to set laws that suit us,” the PM’s chief Brexit negotiator has said in a speech in Brussels.

David Frost has set out the UK’s stance ahead of post-Brexit trade negotiations, due to start next month.

He dismissed the idea an EU court would have a role in future trade disputes, saying: “We only want what other independent countries have.”

It comes as France warns Britain to expect a bruising battle during talks.

Acting Liberal Democrat leader Ed Davey said: “Boris Johnson should listen to the views of British businesses who want to maintain the closest possible alignment with the European Union.”

Addressing students and academics at the Université libre de Bruxelles, Mr Frost said: “It is central to our vision that we must have the ability to set laws that suit us – to claim the right that every other non-EU country in the world has.

“So to think that we might accept EU supervision on so-called level playing field issues simply fails to see the point of what we are doing.”

He said this was not a “a simple negotiating position which might move under pressure – it is the point of the whole project”.

The UK wants a Canada-type free trade agreement with the EU, Mr Frost said. If this cannot be agreed, then Britain will trade on the basic international terms it currently follows with Australia.

He said the UK will set out more details of its vision for the future relationship with the EU next week.

Mr Frost also reiterated the government’s insistence that it will not extend the transition period beyond the end of this year.

The transition period runs until 31 December 2020, during which time the UK continues follow EU rules – including freedom of movement.

It is intended to allow time for the UK and the EU to agree a post-Brexit trade agreement.

One of the key sticking points could be the idea of ensuring a level playing field – which was referred to by Mr Frost in his speech.

The EU wants the UK to sign up to strict rules on fair and open competition – known as level-playing-field guarantees – so if British companies are given tariff-free access to the EU market, they cannot undercut their rivals.

The EU has repeatedly warned that the UK cannot expect to enjoy continued “high-quality” market access if it insists on diverging from EU social and environmental standards.

It also wants the European Court of Justice to have a legal role in policing any free trade agreement reached.

But in his speech, Mr Frost asked: “How would you feel if the UK demanded that, to protect ourselves, the EU dynamically harmonise with our national laws set in Westminster and the decisions of our own regulators and courts?

“The more thoughtful would say that such an approach would compromise the EU’s sovereign legal order.”

A rare appearance by the PM’s man in Brussels

This was a rare public appearance by the man who’ll run Boris Johnson’s negotiations with the EU.

David Frost told the audience at a university in Brussels that the whole point of the UK’s departure was so it could set its own laws for its own benefit.

And that’s why Britain couldn’t accept the continued application of European rules or the involvement of Brussels in competition policy as the conditions for an ambitious free trade agreement.

The question is whether that can be reconciled with the EU’s position that it has to apply more stringent safeguards to its neighbour than it does to Canada, Japan or South Korea.

This carefully controlled event in front of some students, a few diplomats and a lot fewer journalists was designed to show the post-Brexit politics of Britain, not to spell out the government’s opening negotiating position in detail.

That’ll come next week, when the EU is expected to do the same.

Speaking on Sunday, French Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian predicted the two sides would “rip each other apart” as they strove for advantage in the negotiations.

“But that is part of negotiations, everyone will defend their own interests,” he added.

He also said it would be tough for the UK to achieve its aim of agreeing a free trade deal by the end of the year.

Speaking at a security conference in Munich, Mr Le Drian said the two sides were far apart on a range of issues.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2020-02-05.

«Boris Johnson hit out at European countries in a vicious Brexit attack as he accused France, Italy and Germany of undercutting»

«no alignment, no jurisdiction of the European courts and no concessions»

«There is no need for a free trade agreement to involve accepting EU rules on competition policy, subsidies, social protection, the environment, or anything similar – any more than the EU should be obliged to accept UK rules»

«The Prime Minister added Britain has only enforced state aid four times in the past 21 years while France had it 29 time, Italy 5 and Germany 67»

«We want a thriving trade and economic relationship with the EU»

«France spend twice as much on state aid as the UK; Germany three times as much»

«There is no need for a free trade agreement to involve accepting EU rules on competition policy, subsidies, social protection, the environment, or anything similar – any more than the EU should be obliged to accept UK rules.»

* * *

«Prime Minister Mr Johnson has warned he is prepared to halt negotiations on any deal that does not meet his redlines»

«Addressing international business leaders and diplomats, Mr Johnson said there should be “no alignment, no jurisdiction of the European courts and no concessions”.»

«There is no need for a free trade agreement to involve accepting EU rules on competition policy, subsidies, social protection, the environment, or anything similar – any more than the EU should be obliged to accept UK rules»

La logica di Mr Johnson sembrerebbe essere stringente.

*

BORIS JOHNSON hit out at European countries in a vicious Brexit attack as he accused France, Italy and Germany of undercutting.

Boris Johnson explained any “anxiety” in EU trade talks should be on the British side noting the EU27 have state aid. The Prime Minister added Britain has only enforced state aid four times in the past 21 years while France had it 29 time, Italy 5 and Germany 67. Speaking at the conference, Mr Johnson said: “We want a thriving trade and economic relationship with the EU.

“Our historic friends, partners, neighbours and I shall today be making a parliamentary statement our objectives.

“At the outset I just want to say to ours friends, I want to reassure you about one thing. I want to lay one myth to rest.

“We will not engage in some cut-throat race to the bottom.

“We are not leaving the EU to undermine European standards.

“We will not engage in any kind of dumping whether the commercial or social or environmental.

“And don’t just listen to what I say or what we say, look at what we do.

“I say to our friends in those three crucial areas I’ve mentioned, the anxiety should really be on our side of the Channel, not yours.

“You’ve got state aid. France spend twice as much on state aid as the UK; Germany three times as much.

“Who is using subsidies to undercut? Not the UK.

“In fact, the EU’s enforced state aid rules against the UK only four times over the past 21 years whereas 29 actions against France, 5 against Italy and 67 against Germany.

In his speech, the Prime Minister sent a stern warning to the EU.

Mr Johnson said the UK was “ready” to be the champion of free trade in the world post-Brexit.

The Prime Minister said: “When we’re starting to hear some bizarre rhetoric when barriers are going up and where there is a risk that new diseases like coronavirus will trigger a panic and a desire for market segregation that go beyond what is medically rational – to the point of doing real and unnecessary economic damage – then, at that moment, humanity needs some government somewhere that is willing at least to make the case powerful for freedom of exchange.

“Some country ready to take off its Clark Kent spectacles and leap into the phone booth and emerge with its cloak flowing as the champion of the right of population to buy and sell freely among each other.

“I can tell you, in all humility, that he UK is ready for that role.

“We’re ready for the multidimensional game of chess in which we engage in more than one negotiation at once.”

Eurocrats have been ordered to get to work “straight away” on new plans to protect European businesses and citizens if they fail to strike a deal with Britain. A top EU official said: “Measures to prepare for no deal, we’ve said we’ll carry on straight away. “We’ve never stopped saying we should stop preparing notices.

“Even if we have a deal, Michel Barnier has said there will be a change in our relationship… that preparation is ongoing.”

Prime Minister Mr Johnson has warned he is prepared to halt negotiations on any deal that does not meet his redlines.

He is understood to be furious with Brussels, which he believes has pivoted from wanting to forge a deep trading relationship to insisting on regulatory alignment.

Addressing international business leaders and diplomats, Mr Johnson said there should be “no alignment, no jurisdiction of the European courts and no concessions”.

The Prime Minister added: “There is no need for a free trade agreement to involve accepting EU rules on competition policy, subsidies, social protection, the environment, or anything similar – any more than the EU should be obliged to accept UK rules.

“The UK will maintain the highest standards in these areas – better, in many respects, than those of the EU – without the compulsion of a treaty, and it is vital to stress this now.”

But today Michel Barnier unveiled a series of hardline demands that are likely to crash negotiations with London.

The EU’s chief negotiator said Britain would have to remain dynamically aligned with the bloc’s state and competition rules as part of any deal.

It is also understood he will seek “non-regression” clauses for environmental, climate and workers’ rights standards.

He said: “We are ready to offer all this, even though we know that there will be strong competition between the UK and the EU in the future.

“We must now agree on specific and effective guarantees to ensure a level playing field over the long-term.

“That means mechanisms to uphold the high standards we have on social, environmental, climate, tax, and state aid matters today and in their future developments.”

Mr Barnier insisted Brussels was “not asking for alignment” with EU rules because it was a “red rag to the UK”.

But his draft mandate says any free-trade deal “must ensure the application” of the bloc’s state aid laws in Britain, including an oversight role for the ECJ